BS: Language Pet Peeves

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 04:26 PM

Advise and advise, practice and practise, different words with different meanings. Advisor, adviser, same word, same meaning (whatever you say) so no need for two spellings. It's mostly an American thing, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 12:54 PM

But we don't need two words for it, Lighter. And you're talking American. Ever been called Lightor?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 23 - 07:50 AM

Advisor. This is not the traditional spelling of this word, which should be spelled "adviser." I can't claim that "advisor" is incorrect, as it's used so much that it's now standard English, but it grates. Yanks may beg to differ, though even the NYT uses "adviser." I blame Trip Adviser.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 23 - 05:56 AM

If you read the (rather old) Guardian piece, you'll see that bereaved men are far less likely to be referred to as widowers than bereaved women are referred to as widows.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 09:48 AM

After another look I kind of agree with Doug. Better still, a rebuild of the sentence might have worked. It's one of those things that wouldn't matter much if you said it but which looks awkward in print.

The cultivated apple-tree was first introduced into this country by the earliest settlers, and it is thought to do as well or better here than anywhere else.

"The cultivated apple tree, first introduced into this country by the earliest settlers, is thought to do at least as well here as anywhere else."

I left it in, but I'm not keen on "is thought..." as it's tantamount to weasel words (thought by who?) but hey ho, and "apple tree" does not need a hyphen.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 05:52 AM

I can't see much wrong with the original sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 07:33 PM

Pretentious foodie things. "Compote" (mushed up fruit). "A medley of vegetables" (a load of boiled broccoli, carrots and peas piled up in a dish). "Artisanal" ( same as your other stuff but at twice the price). "Fine dining" (fourteen courses of cold, tiny portions on huge plates, often with a "theme" - I once endured such a "feast" in which thinly sliced radishes appeared in at least half the dishes).

If you're somehow persuaded to go to a "fine dining" restaurant, take my advice and make sure that there's a good chippy on your way home.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 23 - 12:30 PM

A couple of days ago meself mentioned a bloke referred to as a widow. I looked this up and it seems that, in newspapers at least, "widow" crops up as much as 15 times more often than "widower." Am I being woke in suspecting that this reflects something unequal in the way we see women in relationships differently to the way we see men? Anyway, a good read, though more than ten years old, in the Guardian: "Women and men are still unequal – even when they are dead" [Matt Mills]

And men are not "widowered," are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 06:39 PM

Nonsense, Doug. I can't help it if I engage with the issue more than you do. I'm very flexible and quite indulgent when it comes to use of language, and I'm always firmly on the side of non-bullshitters.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 04:09 PM

Well let's take another look, shall we? Here's the bit that you three have homed in on:

"Lady Gaga won a Brit in 2010 for best international female artist, not artiste, chanteuse, or songstress."

The Guardian is quite clearly steering its writers (it's their style guide, don't forget) away from outmoded sexist terms for women performers. It's telling its contributors not to lapse into sexist (chanteuse, songstress) or incorrect (artiste, which has nothing to do with "artist," and if you use that word for a female artist not only are you being sexist but you are also dead wrong). That's the sentiment of that sentence whether you like it or not. There is no hint in that sentence whatsoever that the Guardian thinks that "artiste" means, or has ever meant (it hasn't) "female artist." Two things. Look up the definitions of artist and artiste in a dictionary, and have a good read of the Guardian style guide. It's actually very entertaining and it fully reflects modern thinking on how we must be careful with terminology. Go on, I dare you.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 11:22 AM

The three of you need to read that Guardian quote again! In no way does it imply that artiste is the feminine form of artist. In fact, it specifically says not to use the word artiste in that way, so no blunder as far as I can see. I have to assume that you're all fans of the Daily Telegraph! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 10:20 AM

Did anyone make that blunder here?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 07:10 AM

"via the M62 from Besses to the A627(M) turnoff"

Before some present-day local puts me right, it was the turnoff AFTER the A627M, for Shaw, A640. Don't like leaving chinks!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 06:55 AM

I suppose that if you just say "Claus" you might get the odd double-take as people think you're talking about something on a cat. "Santa" on its own nearly always means Father Christmas and has the convenience of not causing confusion. In Italy there are hundreds of churches called Santa-something, and there's Santa Lucia of course (which I once sang in a duet with a boatman just off Siracusa in Sicily), but the default understanding, in an appropriate context, of "Santa" is that you're talking about the Christmas chap.

Leonardo added "da Vinci" to his name himself in order to distinguish himself from other local Leonardos. In almost every case if you're talking about "Leonardo" (and, as I keep saying, context is everything), there's no need to add "da Vinci," though you can if you like. "Leonardo da Vinci" is unobjectionable, but referring to a chap called "da Vinci" without the Leonardo is just ignorant and wrong. Incidentally, Doug, it's only "Da Vinci" if you're starting a sentence with it, otherwise it's "da Vinci," never "Da Vinci," and fusing the two bits into a single word is just laughable.

Everybody knows who you mean if you say Michelangelo, and if you use his surname at all (it's Buonarroti plus a few other bits if you're a purist), you're just showing off. In other cases of less-eminent people, you might have to add a helpful bit on to the end on its first use, e.g. "Geoffrey of Monmouth." You wouldn't then go on to calling him just "of Monmouth," would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 07:42 PM

Well Shaw means "copse" or "thicket" (shut up, Doug), and is related to Littlewood. I had a fiancée who lived in Shaw (coincidentally) and we nearly got married until she thought better of it. I used to visit her by riding my moped from Radcliffe, down Bury Old Road then down Sheepfoot Lane by Heaton Park. Eventually I graduated to my dad's Vauxhall Viva and got there via the M62 from Besses to the A627(M) turnoff. Ah, those were the days. But I digress. Back to the cheery fray, Doug!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 06:48 PM

Well, Doug, feel free to call me Stephen da Radcliffe. The bald fact is that "da Vinci" without Leonardo is simply not his name, end of. He was an illegitimate child and, if you look him up, you'll find that he could have adopted another name to follow "Leonardo."

"If I read a report where the name Leonardo is used on its own, it could be Leonardo Da Vinci, Leonardo DiCaprio or one of a host of other well known Leonardos..."

Disingenuous nonsense, Doug. If you read a report where Leonardo is used on its own, and that report means to refer to Leonardo da Vinci, there will one hundred percent be a ton of context, art, sculpture, whatever, that will confirm to you that the reference is to the great artist and no-one else. No-one is going to mention Leonardo in isolation if they mean Leonardo diCaprio, yer daft bugger. The bottom line here is that his surname is not "da Vinci," any more than your name is Doug da Ashton-under-Lyme or wherever it is you come from.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 04:34 PM

Da Vinci. This is just nonsense. Leonardo's name was Leonardo. "Da Vinci" means "of the village Vinci," which thousands of denizens of that village could have used. Leonardo da Vinci is fine. But referring to him as though "da Vinci" is his surname, without Leonardo, is just pig ignorant. I saw this in the Guardian today, and, of course, there's "Da Vinci Code." It's just laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 03:14 PM

The Guardian style guide on actor/actress:

actor
Use for both male and female actors; do not use actress except when in the name of an award, eg Oscar for best actress. The Guardian’s view is that actress comes into the same category as authoress, comedienne, manageress, “lady doctor”, “male nurse” and similar obsolete terms that date from a time when professions were largely the preserve of one sex (usually men). As Whoopi Goldberg put it in an interview with the paper: “An actress can only play a woman. I’m an actor – I can play anything.”

There is normally no need to differentiate between the sexes – and if there is, the words male and female are perfectly adequate: Lady Gaga won a Brit in 2010 for best international female artist, not artiste, chanteuse, or songstress.

As always, use common sense: a piece about the late film director Carlo Ponti was edited to say that in his early career he was “already a man with a good eye for pretty actors ...” As the readers’ editor pointed out in the subsequent clarification: “This was one of those occasions when the word ‘actresses’ might have been used”

Let common sense prevail!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 03:05 PM

He wasn't talking about a male spider, was he? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 23 - 12:16 PM

I'm struggling here with that affectionate term used for girls/young ladies, "lass" or "lassie," the latter usually applied to younger girls. It's what plural to use. If you see a bunch of nine-year-old girls, especially in Scotland, you might say "Look at those lassies!" Logical, or does it sound like you're referring to a pack of collies? I saw that plural used in the Guardian this morning and it faintly rankled. But a bunch of mature young women might be "lasses," eh? Do we really need two separate plural spellings for a word that sounds identical? Every time I see "lassies" something visceral has me thinking that an ignorant mistake has been made...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 23 - 04:06 PM

Innocent. In conflicts we hear that innocent civilians are bombed. Today, we heard that an "innocent" 15-year-old girl was murdered by stabbing on her way to school. Why innocent? Are we saying that you especially don't deserve to die if you're "innocent" in unspecified ways? Where I come from, even the most evil bastards are regarded as undeserving of death, seeing that we did away with the death penalty decades ago. So don't say "innocent." It's a brainless and emotional addendum to descriptions of victims of horrors. Civilians were bombed. A 15-year-old girl was murdered on her way to school. Two powerful statements that don't require further characterisation of the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 07:31 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Sep 23 - 04:50 PM

It's minUscule, Bill... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 10:36 AM

Yeah, that's not bad!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 09:35 AM

"I'm not saying that I'm the greatest manager, but I'm in the top one."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:35 AM

It should be "the other half," as "my other half" implies that your body comes in two equal and separable pieces...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 23 - 04:32 AM

So you're now including your wife with your goods 'n' chattels, Doug! What did I tell you!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 06:04 PM

I hate asterisks in swear words. Is it f***, f**k, f#@§ - or fuck?

I know what I think when I see asterisks in that word. I think it's f*uck!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 05:58 PM

Cloughie: "If I had an argument with a player, we'd sit down and talk about it for 20 minutes then decide that I was right." I liked Cloughie...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 02:57 PM

I didn't say that "my wife" is "implying inequality, condescension or property-owning!" I said that (in line with the history of the associations with those things of the use of "wife"), the term "my wife," as used in print, has a hint (the word I used, not "implications") of those associations. It will always be undeliberate on the part of the writer, but, to me, it has that ring about it so I don't type it. To imply, Doug, is to make a deliberate point without putting it into precise words, which is completely different from what I was saying. "My husband" doesn't carry those historical associations because, as far as I'm aware, there haven't been cultures in which women "owned" men along with their goods and chattels. But if I see or hear "hubby" it takes me at least five minutes to unclench my buttocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 12:44 PM

And I'm amused by the fact that we're competing as to who enjoys the greater wokitudinousness...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 10:11 AM

I've used it for years and it's a jocular means of avoiding displaying her name, which is respectful to her and which avoids the tired allusions I've been talking about. I can't help it if you want to continue to stubbornly misconstrue that.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 09:20 AM

Well I did say it was clumsy and it's not a construction I'd use. Put it down as a valiant but misguided effort to dispense with the ownership allusion. A similar effort to avoid saying "my wife" is "the missus." We're not far removed historically from "man and wife" and, as I said, in olden times and even in some modern-day cultures the wife was right in there with the goods and chattels. Gosh, in some cultures you can even have more than one. Even Jesus was a bit one-sided on the issue. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, save for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Shows who has to be the decision-making boss then!

I'll continue to avoid "my wife," in writing at least. Seems that I'm a bit more woke than you pair of hubbies...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 07:58 AM

The word "wife" is as perfectly fine as "husband," no argument there. But in many cultures in the past, and even in some today, the wife has been considered to be a possession of the man, subservient to the man, or both. Gosh, it isn't that long ago that we were saying "I now pronounce you man and wife." And there's a difference between using "my wife" informally, as when your introducing each other to someone ("this is Erica, my wife") and formalising it by typing it, on Mudcat for example. You can then make a slight effort to find a more egalitarian form of words that is difficult to do in informal, casual, spoken contexts. In the latter case, both partners are present, which adds an extra contextual dimension that doesn't happen in print. Makes all the difference.

It's also worth noting that many men make a laudable but clumsy effort to avoid the possessive sense of "my wife" by changing it to "the wife." Some people at least can still see the awkwardness of implying that, somehow, she belongs to you and would rather avoid the allusion, even if you two wouldn't.

She's not called Erica, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 06:35 AM

Yes I have, Doug, and I've considered that they're wrong. If you see anything amusing in "significant other" then you need to go and join hands with D****l on the joke thread. "Mrs Steve" may be jocular, but at least it indicates that we are a married couple and there's no hint of inequality, condescension or property-owning there (as in "my wife," etc.). "Significant other" is almost as nonsensical as "albeit," in m'humble. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 23 - 05:49 AM

Just heard a brainless radio presenter (on one of those cosy programmes that cost the Beeb next to nothing to make in which a couple of people talk giggly shite down microphones for fifteen minutes) referring to her "significant other." To me, that's in the same league as "my better half," "the wife" and, above all, the thoroughly detestable and utterly buttock-clenching "my hubby." For God's sake. I mean, what's wrong with "my partner," or, even better, the person's name!

I suppose that, as on here, you may not wish to reveal your partner's name. In private messages I always use her name, but in the open I've resorted to the jocular expression "Mrs Steve" for many years. I will not resort to the twee!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 08:30 AM

Well I can't agree with that. Perhaps we could stick with "great with child."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 23 - 07:13 AM

"Heavily pregnant." I hate this. There's a frisson of the demeaning about it in my mind with regard to both mother and child. The child is burdensome somehow and the mother sounds tediously weighed down. In any case, "pregnant" is a sort of standalone word that shouldn't take an adverb qualifier. We don't say slightly pregnant or very pregnant; well I don't anyway. There are better ways of indicating the stage in pregnancy that's been reached.

Inconsistently mebbe, I'm fine with qualifying "unique," another allegedly standalone word, not because I've given up the fight but because the meaning of "unique" has drifted. The evolution of meanings of words is time-honoured and is healthy and democratic. A good example is how we now use "decimate." ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 12:50 PM

That was the medallion man on Fawlty Towers, Raggytash, "Pretentious? Moi?" :-)

Commonly used in our house!

(Used? Utilised? Deployed? Heheh. Pretentious? Moi?).

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 12:45 PM

Oi, Doug, I use all sorts of words in my posts that I don't see others using. If you're going to make up non-dictionary definitions, here's one of mine:

PRETENTIOUS: of words designed to make you think (mistakenly) you look clever and super-educated but for which there are plenty of simple and common synonyms, e.g., "albeit" (pretentious and often misused); much better synonyms "though," "although." "Prior to" (pretentious); the synonym "before" works every time. "Relatable" (pretentious); plenty of synonyms which far more clearly express the intended meaning, such as "engaging," "sympathetic," "friendly," "collaborative," "approachable," "mutual understanding" (these especially with regard to people). Or get more colourful: "on the same page," "chimes with me."

Also worth avoiding: "end result"; "at the end of the day"; "in close proximity;" "I have to say...", "3 AM in the morning hundred hours."

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 07:26 AM

Not arguing that it's not a legitimate word, Doug. But it's become trendy and there are lots of very good synonyms that may be used instead. It's pretentious, in other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 23 - 04:46 AM

Speaking of personable, what about the ridiculous "relatable?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 23 - 12:54 PM

Oh bugger. It was Rain Dog, not you. A brain fart on my part. Sorry about that. That's a half I owe you...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 23 - 08:11 PM

"Things change. You don't. A sign of the times [a reference to me, guys!].

I still don't like the widespread misuse of decimate. That is just me."

Well, Stanron, I've said so many times in this thread that wot people say a lot inevitably ends up being standard English. We don't have to like the evolution (some I love, some I don't), but the fight is always there to be lost. It's somewhat ironic that you accuse me, after all I've said, of being unable to change, when you make this comment about "decimate." Unfortunately for you, it's been used in what you see as its non-literal sense for hundreds of years. It's a very useful word that implies mass-destruction without putting numbers on it - or, alternatively, it's a virtually extinct word meaning the killing of one Roman soldier in ten. Well we don't have legions of Roman soldiers any more but we can still, if we want, hang on to a very colourful word. Or not. Don't use it if you don't like it. I do like it, so I'll carry on using it and ignore grammar curmudgeons such as your good self. I like "gay" too.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 12:50 PM

Missed out a "have" there, before anyone accuses me of lacking daisies...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 23 - 10:47 AM

The root of the first part of the word lies in "alack," as in "alas and alack!" Therefore there's no room for the letter s in the first syllable of lackadaisical. It's amusing to see just how often ignorantes choose to use big words just to look clever - but slip up. Delicious. Your man could just as easily and far more economically referred to the "lax" preparation for games. Or poor, or sloppy, or casual.

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 05:17 PM

Restauranteur vs restaurateur is a tough bugger. You'd think the former was perfectly logical, but it's, well, not right. If I see it in print, e.g. in the Guardian, I seethe. Otherwise, I get it, sort of, though I do wonder why anyone would choose to use it...

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 23 - 03:57 AM

Dunno, but the other day I picked a buttercup. I thought, "I wonder who left this buttock lying around?"

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 23 - 07:33 PM

Some rugby bloke on the wireless this morning rattled on about the perils of "lacksadaisical" preparations for games. I've heard that so many times. Dammit, man, it's "lackadaisical"!

Subject: RE: BS: Language Pet Peeves
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Aug 23 - 09:39 AM

The much-hated Suella Braverman, our home secretary, used the word "operationalise" three times in a radio interview this morning.